DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manzo (US 20120310254 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manzo discloses a method of actuating an actuation element (see Fig. 7A; 60) to transmit force along an instrument shaft (see Fig. 1; 12), comprising: driving rotational movement of a worm drive (see Fig. 7A; 32) of a force transmission mechanism (30) at a proximal end portion of the instrument shaft by an output drive force from an actuation interface (see Fig. 12B; interface between 100 and 1002) of a teleoperable manipulator (1000) coupled with the force transmission mechanism, wherein the instrument shaft has a shaft longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1; longitudinal axis of 12); converting the rotational movement of the worm drive into linear translational movement of a linkage (see Fig. 7B; 40) of the force transmission mechanism, the linkage engaged with the worm drive (see Fig. 8; via 33); converting the linear translational movement of the linkage to cause linear translational movement of the actuation element along a longitudinal axis of the actuation element (see Fig. 7B; longitudinal axis of 60) and in a direction substantially parallel to the shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft by the linear translational movement of the linkage (see Fig. 1,4A and 7B); and converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into movement of a movable component (see Fig. 2; 14) coupled to a distal portion of the instrument shaft (see Fig. 1). Note that paragraph [0059] discloses the operation of drive system 30).
Regarding claim 3, Manzo discloses the movable component (14) comprises an end effector (see paragraph [0037], wherein 14 is disclosed as an ed effector) coupled at a distal end of the instrument shaft (12).
Regarding claim 4, Manzo discloses driving the rotational movement of the worm drive (32) comprises driving the rotational movement of the worm drive about a worm drive axis of rotation (rotation axis of 32) parallel to and offset from the shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft (12; see Fig. 4A and 7A).
Regarding claim 5, Manzo discloses driving the rotational movement of the worm drive (32) comprises driving the rotational movement by an output drive force from the actuation interface (interface between 100 and 1002) of the teleoperable manipulator (1002) occurs in response to a command received from input at a surgeon console (see Fig. 12B; 2000) external to the teleoperable manipulator (see Fig. 12B).
Regarding claim 6; Manzo discloses the linkage (40) comprises a first link portion (see Fig. 9A; right side portion of 40) engaged with the worm drive (32) and a second link portion (left side portion of 40) coupled to the actuation element (60) and to the first link portion, and wherein the linear translational movement of the linkage comprises movement of the first link portion of the linkage along the worm drive and linear translational movement of the second link portion along a direction parallel to a rotational axis of the worm drive (see Fig. 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 7, Manzo discloses the linear translational movement of the second link portion (left side portion of 40) causes the linear translational movement of the actuation element (60; see Fig. 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 10, Manzo discloses the second link portion (end portion of the right side portion of 40) extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the worm drive (axis of 32).
Regarding claim 12, Manzo discloses driving rotational movement of the instrument shaft about the shaft longitudinal axis (see paragraph [0048], wherein roll of the shaft and end effector is disclosed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzo (US 20120310254 A1) in view of Grygorowicz (WO 0238342 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Manzo discloses the second link portion (left side portion of 40) comprises a first end portion coupled to the first link portion (end portion of the left side portion of 40 coupled to the right side portion of 40), and a second end portion (end portion of the right side portion of 40). Manzo fails to disclose a post. However, Grygorowicz teaches a post (see Fig. 6, 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Manzo with a post, as taught by Grygorowicz, to provide a sliding structure which guides the link during actuation and prevents tilting of the link which can cause damage to the internal mechanisms. As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the second end portion (Manzo, end portion of the right side portion of 40) slidably coupled to a post (Grygorowicz, 21) by a coupling member (Grygorowicz, coupling member between 2 and 21), and wherein the linear translational movement of the second link portion is caused by the coupling member sliding along the post (Grygorowicz, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the actuation element (Manzo; 60) is coupled to the linkage (Manzo; 40) at an intermediate portion of the linkage between the first end portion and the second end portion (Grygorowicz, Fig. 2, wherein post 21 is provided near the middle of 2).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzo (US 20120310254 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Manzo discloses the movable component (14) comprises a jaw mechanism (see Fig. 2); and opening or closing movement of the jaw mechanism (see paragraph [0048], wherein opening and closing of the jaws are disclosed). Manzo fails to disclose converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into movement of the movable component comprises converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into opening or closing movement of the jaw mechanism. However, it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this instance, providing a duplicate force transmission would produce the expected result of opening or closing the jaw mechanism. Further motivation exists for duplicating the force transmission since one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that using multiples of the same elements, e.g., worm gears, transmission elements, links, etc., reduces construction complexity and cost and also reduces repair and/or replacement costs.
Claim 14-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs (US 20120150192 A1) in view of Grygorowicz (WO 0238342 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dachs discloses a method of operating a surgical instrument (see Fig. 6A; 70); an actuation interface (see Fig. 5A and 6A; interface between 22 and 70) of a teleoperable manipulator (22). Dachs fails to disclose an actuation element to transmit force along an instrument shaft, the method comprising: driving rotational movement of a worm drive of a force transmission mechanism at a proximal end portion of the instrument shaft, wherein the instrument shaft has a shaft longitudinal axis; converting the rotational movement of the worm drive into pivoting movement of a linkage of the force transmission mechanism; causing linear translational movement of the actuation element along a longitudinal axis of the actuation element and in a direction substantially parallel to the shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft by the pivoting movement of the linkage; and converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into movement of a movable component coupled to a distal portion of the instrument shaft. However, Grygorowicz teaches an actuation element (see Fig. 7, element between 1 and 22) to transmit force along an instrument shaft (shaft on which 1 slides), comprising: driving rotational movement of a worm drive (6) of a force transmission mechanism (internal mechanism of 10) at a proximal end portion of the instrument shaft, wherein the instrument shaft has a shaft longitudinal axis (axis of the shaft on which 1 slides); converting the rotational movement of the worm drive into pivoting movement of a linkage (22) of the force transmission mechanism; causing linear translational movement of the actuation element along a longitudinal axis of the actuation element (longitudinal axis of the element between 1 and 22) and in a direction substantially parallel to the shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft by the pivoting movement of the linkage (see Fig. 7); and converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into movement of a movable component (1) coupled to a distal portion of the instrument shaft (see Fig. 7; see attached English translation, wherein the operation of the device in Fig. 7 is disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Dachs with the force transmission as taught by Grygorowicz, for facilitating the adjustment of a clamping force of each piece, after the jaws are closed, while using a low power motor in order to save energy and reduce the size of the clamp (see attached English translation of 09/22/2025, page 1 last paragraph to page 2 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: converting the rotational movement of the worm drive (Grygorowicz; 6) into pivoting movement of the linkage (Grygorowicz; 22) of the force transmission mechanism comprises moving a follower member (Grygorowicz; 12) at first end portion of the linkage (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 closest to 12) along the worm drive and causing pivoting motion of the linkage about a pivot axis (Grygorowicz; axis of 24) at a second end portion of the linkage opposite the first end portion (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 comprising 24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the pivot axis (Grygorowicz; axis of 24) is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the actuation element (Grygorowicz; longitudinal axis of the element between 1 and 22) and of shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft (Grygorowicz; axis of the shaft on which 1 slides).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the actuation element (Grygorowicz; element between 1 and 22) is coupled to the linkage (Grygorowicz; 22) at an intermediate portion of the linkage (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 closet to the element between 1 and 22) between the first end portion (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 closest to 12) and the second end portion (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 comprising 24).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the movable component (Grygorowicz; 1) comprises a jaw mechanism (Grygorowicz; see Fig. 7), and wherein converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element (Grygorowicz; element between 1 and 22) into movement of the movable component comprises converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into opening or closing of the jaw mechanism (Grygorowicz; see Fig. 3-4 wherein movement of 1 is shown).
Regarding claim 19, Dachs discloses driving rotational movement of the instrument shaft about the shaft longitudinal axis (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 21, Dachs discloses the output drive force from the actuation interface (interface between 22 and 70) of a teleoperable manipulator (22) occurs in response to an input command at a surgeon console (see Fig. 1; 16) external to the teleoperable manipulator (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 2-7, 10 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 with respect to claims 14-19 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Grygorowicz does not belong to the field of technology of operating a surgical instrument as set forth in amended claim 14, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” In this instance, (1) the instant application and Grygorowicz are from the same field of endeavor, i.e., robotics, and (2) Grygorowicz is directed toward a jaw mechanism, which is reasonably pertinent to the jaw mechanism of the instant application. As such, Grygorowicz is considered analogous art. Additionally, Grygorowicz discloses “it goes without saying that the electrically operated clamp according to the invention will find numerous applications in various industrial fields such as the so-called clamping cylinders and more particularly the clamping systems of automobile fittings for example, and that the examples which have just been given are only particular illustrations in no way limiting the fields of application of the invention.” Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the apparatus of Grygorowicz can be used in other fields, e.g., surgery.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618